[Sewall, C. J.:] The defendant was indicted at the Court
of Common Pleas for this county, November term, 1809,
for selling spirituous liquors within the town of Springfield,
in this county, against the form of the statute, &c.

The indictment contained three counts, charging the
defendant with three distinct offences in selling rum to
three several persons.

Upon a trial had in the court below, he was convicted,
and sentenced to pay a fine and costs. From that sentence
he appealed to this Court, having agreed on record that,
in any future stage of the proceedings, he would admit the
selling of the rum, as charged in the first and third counts
of the indictment; and the attorney prosecuting for the
commonwealth having entered a nolle prosequi as to the second
count,

The cause was submitted to the opinion of the Court
upon the following facts, stated and agreed by the defendant
and the counsel for the commonwealth.

"Before and at the time of the adoption of the constitution
of the United States, there were standing in the town
of Springfield, and on land owned by said town, divers
buildings erected and occupied by the U. S. as arsenals, in
which they then had, and always since have had, large
quantities of guns and other military stores; and one
building erected by the U. S. and occupied by them as a
powder magazine. After the passing of the law of the U.S.
of April 2d, 1794, providing for the erecting and maintaining
of arsenals and magazines, and for other purposes,
viz., on the 22d of June, 1795, one N. Patten conveyed certain
land on Mill River, in said Springfield, to the then secretary
of state, in trust for the U. S., on which they
erected, and have ever since maintained, buildings suitable
for manufacturing small-arms; and have occupied the
same for performing parts of the labor in making small-arms;
and ever since the year 1794 have occupied other
buildings, near to the said military stores and magazine,
for performing other parts of the labor in making small-arms;
said last-mentioned buildings having been erected
by the U. S. before that time on land owned by the town
of Springfield.--On the 14th of May, 1798, the U. S. by law
authorized the president, in case he should think proper,
to take by lease, or to purchase in fee, lands, and erect
founderies for cannon, and armories for making small-arms.
On the 25th of June, 1798, a law of this commonwealth
passed, giving the consent thereof that the U. S.
might purchase a tract of land in Springfield, not exceeding
six hundred and forty acres, for the sole purpose of
erecting forts, magazines, arsenals, and other needful
buildings, the evidence of the purchases to be recorded in
the registry of deeds for the county of Hampshire. On the
19th of September, 1798, John Ashley, by his deed duly
recorded as aforesaid, conveyed to the U. S. in fee a parcel
of land on Mill River, so called, in said Springfield, on
which the U. S. the same year erected, and have ever since
kept and occupied, large and suitable buildings and machinery
for making small-arms. On the 24th of August,
1801, the said town of Springfield, by their deed duly recorded
as aforesaid, conveyed to the U. S. a parcel of land
in said town, on which the military stores before mentioned
then stood, on which also then stood divers other
buildings, some of which, ever since the year 1794, have
been occupied by the U. S. for the manufacture of small-arms,
and also another small piece of land, on which then
stood and still stands the said powder magazine. On the
9th of January, 1809, James Byers, by his deed duly recorded,
conveyed to the U. S. another parcel of land in
said town, lying also on Mill River aforesaid, on which, before
the time of committing the supposed offence alleged
in the indictment, there were erected by the U. S. divers
buildings suitable for the manufacture of small-arms, and
several dwelling-houses occupied by the artificers employed
in the said manufactures by the U. S. The said several
parcels of land are separate and distant from each
other, and do not contain in the whole 640 acres; and a
line may be so drawn as to enclose the whole of them, and
not to contain within the same more than 640 acres. The
said parcels of land lying on Mill River have not been occupied
by the U. S. as arsenals, but as parts of an armory;
and the two pieces conveyed by the town of Springfield
have, ever since the year 1794, been occupied by the U. S.
as well for arsenals and magazines as for parts of an armory.

The said Clary, at the several times set forth in the first
and third counts of the indictment, did sell, as therein
mentioned, to the several persons therein named, the said
spirituous liquors, without license therefor first had and
obtained from the Court of Common Pleas for said
county. But he was at the said several times employed as
an overseer of one of the water-shops owned by the U. S.,
and sold the said liquors in a dwelling-house erected by
the U. S. on the said land purchased by them of James
Byers, to the said persons, by the permission and approbation
of Benjamin Prescott, superintendent of the armory
of the U. S. in Springfield."

If the Court, upon the whole matters aforesaid, are of
opinion that the said Clary is guilty, as charged in the first
and third counts of the indictment, judgment was to be
rendered thereon against him; otherwise he was to be acquitted
and discharged.

The defence relied on was, that the offence charged was
committed within a territory over which the laws of the
United States had exclusive jurisdiction; that the laws of the
commonwealth had no operation therein; and of consequence
that the defendant was not bound to answer for
the offence in the courts of the commonwealth.

. . . . .

On the facts agreed in this case we are of opinion, that
the territory, on which the offence charged is agreed to
have been committed, is the territory of the United States,
over which the congress have the exclusive power of legislation.
The assent of the commonwealth to the purchase
of this territory by the United States, had this condition
annexed to it--that civil and criminal process might be
served therein by the officers of the commonwealth. This
condition was made with a view to prevent the territory
from becoming a sanctuary for debtors and criminals; and
from the subsequent assent of the United States to the said
condition, evidenced by their making the purchase, it results
that the officers of the commonwealth, in executing
such process, act under the authority of the United States.
No offences committed within that territory, are committed
against the laws of this commonwealth; nor can such
offences be punishable by the courts of the commonwealth,
unless the congress of the United States should give
to the said courts jurisdiction thereof.

As a consequence of these positions, it is the opinion of
the Court, that they have no cognizance of the offences
charged in this indictment, and that the defendant must
be discharged.

An objection occurred to the minds of some members
of the Court, that if the laws of the commonwealth have
no force within this territory, the inhabitants thereof cannot
exercise any civil or political privileges, under the laws
of Massachusetts, within the town of Springfield. We are
agreed that such consequence necessarily follows; and we
think that no hardship is thereby imposed on those inhabitants;
because they are not interested in any elections
made within the state, or held to pay any taxes imposed by
its authority, nor bound by any of its laws.--And it might
be very inconvenient to the United States to have their laborers,
artificers, officers, and other persons employed in
their service, subjected to the services required by the
commonwealth of the inhabitants of the several towns.

It will be noticed, that in this decision we make a distinction
between persons who actually dwell within the territory
owned by the United States, and the laborers and artificers
employed therein, who have their dwelling
elsewhere.